AMEX Cutting My Available Credit

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This area of being approved for a credit limit, using such limit and making on time payments even if only the minimum, needs further legal interpretation. 

If any of you remember in the 90's, mimimum payments were much higher on charge accounts. Store cards were 15-20% of the balance. Bank cards were at least 5%. So people had to be cognizant of how high the minimum payment was before maxing out a card.

These new "minimums" of 1-2% of the balance and then wanting to take AA when someone occasionally has an off month and exercises their right to make lower payments is questionable to me.

---

The bank has a right to change the terms, reduce the credit limit or close an account at will. There is no legal about it, their money, their rules. Minimum payments are simply a guideline as to what is required to not default. Anyone with math skills should know to pay more than minimum, 0% is no excuse. No one has the right to make lower payments more than the bank has the right to not allow you to default for a higher amount than necessary. If you do not like their rules, you are free to go back to using cash and bartering just as well. This is your right.

[SouthJamaica]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

It's this whole entitlement attitude that's pervasive throughout the board that somehow AMEX (or any credit card company) OWES YOU not the other way around.  Credit is to be used responsibly, keeping a high balance while making minimum payments is not seen as responsible.  AMEX is one of the strictest lenders out there when it comes to this sort of thing, and quite frankly I'm shocked they even made the offer to keep it open. Lenders like to see financial responsibility.  Getting and keeping a credit card is a nice alternative to using a payday lender, try making lower payments on one of THEIR loans and see how they react. 

---

I think you're missing the point. He has a contractual relationship with them. In midstream they changed the deal.

Yes in their fine print somewhere they reserve the right to change their deal for any reason or no reason at all.

But he had a right to reasonably expect them to act in good faith. He had a right to reasonably expect that if he dutifully performs his end of the agreement they will perform theirs. And he had a right to reasonably expect that if they felt that somehow they were uncomfortable with the amount of his utilization, they would send him a notice and give him an opportunity to gracefully reduce the utilization, rather than be humiliated.

People should deal honorably and in good faith with each other.

Corporations should deal honorably and in good faith with their customers.

[Anonymous]

---

@SouthJamaica wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

It's this whole entitlement attitude that's pervasive throughout the board that somehow AMEX (or any credit card company) OWES YOU not the other way around.  Credit is to be used responsibly, keeping a high balance while making minimum payments is not seen as responsible.  AMEX is one of the strictest lenders out there when it comes to this sort of thing, and quite frankly I'm shocked they even made the offer to keep it open. Lenders like to see financial responsibility.  Getting and keeping a credit card is a nice alternative to using a payday lender, try making lower payments on one of THEIR loans and see how they react. 

---

I think you're missing the point. He has a contractual relationship with them. In midstream they changed the deal.

Yes in their fine print somewhere they reserve the right to change their deal for any reason or no reason at all.

But he had a right to reasonably expect them to act in good faith. He had a right to reasonably expect that if he dutifully performs his end of the agreement they will perform theirs. And he had a right to reasonably expect that if they felt that somehow they were uncomfortable with the amount of his utilization, they would send him a notice and give him an opportunity to gracefully reduce the utilization, rather than be humiliated.

People should deal honorably and in good faith with each other.

Corporations should eal honorably and in good faith with their customers.

---

Good faith is allowing the poster to keep their account open and make payments. Good faith is allowing them to verify their income in exchange for restoring their credit line. Good faith is the fact they notified them that their credit line had been reduced, Potentially saving some of this so-called humiliation. What is good faith?

[taxi818]

There is no contract. Never was. It's always their money. They can actually close your account without warning if they choose. That's why utilization so important. If low. Perceived risk seems low. Nothing to say you still won't burn them. But chances are you wont. When utilization is high. So is the risk you just might say screw it. So they simply lower their risk. This is not so hard to see.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This area of being approved for a credit limit, using such limit and making on time payments even if only the minimum, needs further legal interpretation. 

If any of you remember in the 90's, mimimum payments were much higher on charge accounts. Store cards were 15-20% of the balance. Bank cards were at least 5%. So people had to be cognizant of how high the minimum payment was before maxing out a card.

These new "minimums" of 1-2% of the balance and then wanting to take AA when someone occasionally has an off month and exercises their right to make lower payments is questionable to me.

---

The bank has a right to change the terms, reduce the credit limit or close an account at will. There is no legal about it, their money, their rules. Minimum payments are simply a guideline as to what is required to not default. Anyone with math skills should know to pay more than minimum, 0% is no excuse. No one has the right to make lower payments more than the bank has the right to not allow you to default for a higher amount than necessary. If you do not like their rules, you are free to go back to using cash and bartering just as well. This is your right.

---

If the average citizens understand the behind closed door dealings of all major lenders and what they did and continue to do with depositor funds which created the banking crash, you wouldn't rush to the defense of the big banks, who nowadays will throw a customer under the bus with no remorse all in the name of maximizing profits and engaging in risky investments. 

For all of you who side with the bank, yes they have complete control of your credit cards and can wipe out your profile any time they please.  Never forget that. They don't give a damn about you!!!

Let's let the op explain his situation in more detail before demonizing him.

[taxi818]

They can and will throw you under the bus in a hot minute.  I don't see anyone demonizing Op. just saying when you get high overall util. not just on 1 card.Banks will react. and they will react in an unfavorable way.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This area of being approved for a credit limit, using such limit and making on time payments even if only the minimum, needs further legal interpretation. 

If any of you remember in the 90's, mimimum payments were much higher on charge accounts. Store cards were 15-20% of the balance. Bank cards were at least 5%. So people had to be cognizant of how high the minimum payment was before maxing out a card.

These new "minimums" of 1-2% of the balance and then wanting to take AA when someone occasionally has an off month and exercises their right to make lower payments is questionable to me.

---

The bank has a right to change the terms, reduce the credit limit or close an account at will. There is no legal about it, their money, their rules. Minimum payments are simply a guideline as to what is required to not default. Anyone with math skills should know to pay more than minimum, 0% is no excuse. No one has the right to make lower payments more than the bank has the right to not allow you to default for a higher amount than necessary. If you do not like their rules, you are free to go back to using cash and bartering just as well. This is your right.

---

If the average citizens understand the behind closed door dealings of all major lenders and what they did and continue to do with depositor funds which created the banking crash, you wouldn't rush to the defense of the big banks, who nowadays will throw a customer under the bus with no remorse all in the name of maximizing profits and engaging in risky investments. 

For all of you who side with the bank, yes they have complete control of your credit cards and can wipe out your profile any time they please.  Never forget that. They don't give a damn about you!!!

Let's let the op explain his situation in more detail before demonizing him.

---

I know all about how the banking system works and use every advantage available to me. If you see my comments as "defending" the banks, then you clearly don't understand what I am trying to say. I am glad that you understand that the banks can and do have the power to make your life quite miserable at their whim, Not enough people do. I side with common sense. No one has the *right* to credit nor minimum payments for that matter. If you are seen as a risk, you will get shut down plain and simple. No one is demonizing the original poster.

[red259]

Couple of things. Claiming credit card companies can do whatever they feel like is a vast overstatement. I also think it is absurd that if someone had 0% apr they should know to pay beyond min required. That is a vastly different situation than someone carrying a balance with interest which could indicate financial distress. For everyone talking about legal rights etc please read the credit card terns. You entered into a legal agreement with the lender and the terms are laid out there. If you didn't read the agreement please don't complain about your legal rights being violated because that is not how the law works. I understand the emotion here but it's all in the terms. Finally the idea of a corporation being honorable? I hate to break it to you but that is naive to expect. They care about profits and could care less about you. I don't mean it to be harsh but if someone thinks lenders care about them they need to see this is not true and understand that. Its business it's not personal. If they are taking AA action they don't currently see you as an ideal customer. I agree with another poster that this type of thing is done by computers and formulas. It's not like the lender is targeting someone because they don't like it. It's all based on the math. The reason they don't tell someone beforehand about lowering the limits is that there are some people who would rush out and max the card upon hearing that.

[kdm31091]

Bottom line is you are using someone else's money and therefore you play by their rules. That includes their stated right to close the account or CLD when/if they see fit. Period.

If you don't like this, then use cash/debit which is actually your money that can't be CLD!

[Gmood1]

Sorry OP for your misfortune. I'm new to Amex and called with questions just two days ago. The CSR was friendly and explained Amex does a review of your profile every 90 days. He also applauded me for paying my balances in full the last two months. This was my hint that they REALLY do prefer people to PIF each month. I'm glad I have other credit lines. I wouldn't want to depend on just one. Especially if they have a itchy trigger finger in reducing CL's. I'm not well heeled by any means. I just don't charge what I can't pay at that very moment in cash. That's the only way to stay out of trouble with these credit cards.